Woman found guilty of rape in hotel toilet

Lia_lia

lol, digital rape.

Napper Hawkins

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

So would it have been different if it was a man and not a woman in this case? Would you be mocking it then? Would consent come into it?

AH posters often complain that women preferential treatment with respect to the law etc but when a woman get convicted of rape it's all laughs and giggles from mostly the male posters.

Well seeing as they have the inconvenience of having no mans life to ruin they have to go for the next best thing, like convict a foreigner, even if it is a woman.

Dave!

Oh I also just realised what was meant by digital rape

Dr. Zeus

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Well seeing as they have the inconvenience of having no mans life to ruin they have to go for the next best thing, like convict a foreigner, even if it is a woman.

Wow, what a nasty post.

Napper Hawkins

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

Wow, what a nasty post.

Sorry?

wexford96c

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

So would it have been different if it was a man and not a woman in this case? Would you be mocking it then? Would consent come into it?

Dr.Zeus......I believe you will probably agree that rape can be defined as "sexual pentetration that is not consensual". The Irish girl had no way to know that it was not consensual because the Ozzie girl never said no - even by her own admission. Case closed, in my book. But the Kangaroo Court Down Under convicted the girl because she was a foreigner. Shame on them - as I said earlier - that's expected in Dubai!!!

Jesus Wept

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-woman-convicted-of-lesbian-rape-in-australia-2010-12/

Irish woman convicted of lesbian rape in Australia

Anne-Marie O'Loughlin (25) raped a 34-year-old woman in the genitals and anus at the Caxton Hotel, Brisbane, on November 29 last year.

AN IRISH NURSE living and working in Australia has been found guilty of raping another woman in the toilets of a Brisbane hotel.
A jury found Anne-Marie O’Loughlin (25), born in Dublin, guilty of two counts of rape and of another charge of depriving the liberty of her 34-year-old victim, following an incident at the city’s Caxton Hotel on November 29, 2009.
Crying as the verdicts were delivered, O’Loughlin was found not guilty of a fourth charge of sexual assault.
The five-day trial at Brisbane District Court heard that O’Loughlin had approached the woman in a cubicle of the toilet, and began to kiss her for up to three minutes, Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper reports.
Though the victim – who has not been named – consented to the kiss, believing it would be the easiest way to avoid a conflict, she said she didn’t consent to O’Loughlin pulling up her clothes and touching her breasts, and also said she did not consent to being digitally penetrated in the genitals and anus.
When the victim had tried to leave the cubicle, O’Loughlin grabbed her by the head and pulled her back inside. While the victim admitted she had not given any verbal indication that she did not consent to O’Loughlin’s actions, she said she had pushed the Irishwoman’s hands away, resisted her attempts to pull down her jeans, and had tried to call for security.
Victim did not say ‘no’

On Wednesday the jury was shown a video interview given by O’Loughlin in which she admitted she may have kissed the victim – though she had no memory of doing so – but said she was “shocked” when she was accused of “touching her [the victim] up”, adding that it was not in her nature to force someone to have sex with her.
She admitted in that interview, though, that she had woken up in bed alongside “three or four” women in the past.
O’Loughlin’s barrister had put it to the jury that it was possible the victim had consented to the incident, but had made a false complaint to police about the incident, after she became remorseful of her actions when her husband learned of them.
The husband had become upset and agitated at the hotel following the incident, calling police immediately afterwards and trying to detain O’Loughlin at the hotel, shouting that she had “molested my wife”.
A DNA sample taken from the skin under O’Loughlin’s fingernails matched that of the victim.
O’Loughlin had been remanded in Australia on a criminal charge visa, and would have returned home on Monday if she had been acquitted.
On the request of O’Loughlin’s barrister, Judge David Reid agreed he would seek a psychological report on O’Loughlin before agreeing a date for sentencing.
The trial was adjourned until Friday, when a date for sentencing will be set.

All seems a bit dodgy...

Did they go to the toilets/cubicle together?

wrote:

Judge Reid said while the woman conceded under cross-examination she had not screamed "no" or "don't do that", she said she had demonstrated she had not consented when she pushed O'Loughlin's hands away, pulled up her jeans while Ms O'Loughlin tried to pull them down and, at the end of the incident, yelling out for security.

Dr. Zeus

wexford96c wrote: »

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

So would it have been different if it was a man and not a woman in this case? Would you be mocking it then? Would consent come into it?

Dr.Zeus......I believe you will probably agree that rape can be defined as "sexual pentetration that is not consensual". The Irish girl had no way to know that it was not consensual because the Ozzie girl never said no - even by her own admission. Case closed, in my book. But the Kangaroo Court Down Under convicted the girl because she was a foreigner. Shame on them - as I said earlier - that's expected in Dubai!!!

Do you really think that fact that she was foreign had something to do with the conviction? I know Australia is often accused of being racist but I always though this was more towards aboriginees (spelt wrong!) and non caucasions?

WindSock

The article says she didn't consent, it didn't say she didn't say no though. Perhaps she did say no, or perhaps she pushed the womans hands away from her, or she may have been too drunk to consent.

Either way, yeah woman convicted of raping another woman with her fingers...lolz to be had...

Edit: oh I see it there, she didn't say no but pushed her hands away. That should be a clear enough indicator that she didn't want yer wan to do what she did.

Napper Hawkins

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

wexford96c wrote: »

Do you really think that fact that she was foreign had something to do with the conviction? I know Australia is often accused of being racist but I always though this was more towards aboriginees (spelt wrong!) and non caucasions?

Racists aren't that picky.

wexford96c

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

wexford96c wrote: »

Do you really think that fact that she was foreign had something to do with the conviction? I know Australia is often accused of being racist but I always though this was more towards aboriginees (spelt wrong!) and non caucasions?

I never thought of Australia as racist until I read this article. But I simply can't see any other reason for conviction. The way I see it....2 horny chics go to the jacks for a bit of girl / girl action........the Aussie decides afterwards.....because the controlling hubby was giving her grief....... that she was a victim.....that even though she hadn't said no.......neither did she give permission!!!! What was the Irish chic to do??? Type up an Affidavit that she was being allowed to move to the next level and have it notarized before the finger went in???? Come on!!! So then the Prosecutor and Judge and Jury all gang up on the girl and throw her in the can. Watch the movie Midnight Express - about jail in Turkey - eye opener!!!

Horse_box

Gucky wrote: »

digital rape?

Is this the next thing Sky have introduced?

Lets just hope George Hook isn't drafted in to do the adds

Jesus Wept

Digital rape should be called Drape.

maxxie

sweet, ive a new word for fingerbangin

why didnt the rapee say no at any stage during the digital violation?

Kimia

wexford96c wrote: »

I never thought of Australia as racist until I read this article. But I simply can't see any other reason for conviction. The way I see it....2 horny chics go to the jacks for a bit of girl / girl action........the Aussie decides afterwards.....because the controlling hubby was giving her grief....... that she was a victim.....that even though she hadn't said no.......neither did she give permission!!!! What was the Irish chic to do??? Type up an Affidavit that she was being allowed to move to the next level and have it notarized before the finger went in???? Come on!!! So then the Prosecutor and Judge and Jury all gang up on the girl and throw her in the can. Watch the movie Midnight Express - about jail in Turkey - eye opener!!!

She pushed her hands away and tried to call for security. That sounds like non-consensual to me.

WindSock

wexford96c wrote: »

I never thought of Australia as racist until I read this article. But I simply can't see any other reason for conviction. The way I see it....2 horny chics go to the jacks for a bit of girl / girl action........the Aussie decides afterwards.....because the controlling hubby was giving her grief....... that she was a victim.....that even though she hadn't said no.......neither did she give permission!!!! What was the Irish chic to do??? Type up an Affidavit that she was being allowed to move to the next level and have it notarized before the finger went in???? Come on!!! So then the Prosecutor and Judge and Jury all gang up on the girl and throw her in the can. Watch the movie Midnight Express - about jail in Turkey - eye opener!!!

That's a pretty big conclusion to jump to that she was convicted out of racist motivations.
If a chick went into the jacks with a lad for a smooch and he went further south with his hands, she pushed them away, yet he persisted, she tried to escape but he pulled her back by her hair, what would you think then?
She may not have said 'no' but her actions indicated the woman was going far beyond what she was comfortable with.

Jesus Wept

Kimia wrote: »

She pushed her hands away and tried to call for security. That sounds like non-consensual to me.

You haven't read the reports fully.

godtabh

The-Rigger wrote: »

Digital rape should be called Drape.

Goes well with a certain curtain analogy

Kimia

The-Rigger wrote: »

You haven't read the reports fully.

Yes I have. You posted it. She was pulled back into the cubicle by her head it said.

latenia

Anne-Marie O'Loughlin (25) raped a 34-year-old woman in the genitals and anus at the Caxton Hotel, Brisbane, on November 29 last year.

I guess you could say she was a digital/analogue receiver.

:cool:Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!!:cool:

Dave!

latenia wrote: »

I guess you could say she was a digital/analogue receiver.

:cool:Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!!:cool:

Well played

WindSock

latenia wrote: »

I guess you could say she was a digital/analogue receiver.

:cool:Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!!:cool:

She said she wanted to give her 1. And then a 0.

javaboy

WindSock wrote: »

She said she wanted to give her 1. And then a 0.

Binary curious?

Dr Bolouswki

I hope this thread isn't representative of Irish society. Woman gets abused in toilets and everyone has a big laugh. Shame on you all.

WindSock

Nah the rape bit isn't funny. It's just the puns on the digital part, really.

javaboy

Dr Bolouswki wrote: »

I hope this thread isn't representative of Irish society. Woman gets abused in toilets and everyone has a big laugh. Shame on you all.

We're mostly making fun of the term digital rape.

You know stuff like "in an ironic turnabout, the victim fingered the accused in a police identity parade"..... most people aren't actually laughing at the abuse element.

28064212

Dr Bolouswki wrote: »

I hope this thread isn't representative of Irish society. Woman gets abused in toilets and everyone has a big laugh. Shame on you all.

I think if AH is representative of Irish society it would have imploded a long time ago

Nozebleed

can she sue the bitch if she gets digital herpes?

amacachi

latenia wrote: »

I guess you could say she was a digital/analogue receiver.

:cool:Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!!:cool:

That has to be post of the day.

WindSock wrote: »

Nah the rape bit isn't funny. It's just the puns on the digital part, really.

Glad you can see that it's not the rape bit that people are laughing at.


From reading the article I really can't see how a guilty verdict was returned.

ebixa82

This makes the whole thing sound a bit more serious..


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1204/1224284774265.html


[/QUOTE]When the victim tried to leave, O’Loughlin grabbed her hair, slammed her head into a wall and pulled her into a toilet cubicle.